CCTV video and stills of Princess Diana from the night of her death have been released to the public.Should they have been? The video was taken in a private hotel, on her personal time. Should this become public information? Do we have the right and privilege to see this material?
Great Britain makes use of a lot of closed circuit television cameras as security devices. Last month, a camera captured video of a young boy brandishing a rifle on the streets of Manchester.
Is the government watching you? Is that good or bad?
Did you know that Temple University has more than 400 CCTV cameras around campus watching you? Do you feel safer now?
Or do you worry that pics of you doing stupid things will wind up being published somewhere?
18 comments:
CCTV is everywhere in Manchester, I swear it's on every street corner and necessarily so because Mancs are all crazy!
Anyway, who cares if the government is watching me walk to class? I don't think the cameras are a big deal, they're there for our safety, right?
CCTV, Lifetime movies about her "murder". I guess there's no reason that it shouldn't have been on Sky News. She's an icon, the Brits love her, people want to know what happened.
I don't know that we had the right to view this information on Princess Diana, but I also don't see the harm in it. Is it necessary to know how many times she smiled in an elevator? Probably not. But people have an interest in what goes on in the private lives of others, and journalists clearly have an interest in giving it to them. As long as publications like People magazine continue to exist, people in the public eye are not safe from exposure.
It's a hotel. It is technically a public place. It's pretty common knowledge that elevators have cameras, and she even looks like she is smiling into it. People get robbed in elevators! I'd be more worried if they didn't have them.
Actually, hotels are private areas - you know, owned by individuals or companies, not the government or the people.
Big Brother is watching you and that doesn't bother you? He sees you when you're sleeping. He knows when your awake.
- George (the teacher who trusts no one)
It does bother me that these photos were published of her from the night of her death. Who really cares what she was doing in an elevator hours before? Did it ultimately result in her death?
And it does bother me that cameras are watching me, every day, everytime I step out of my room, everything I eat, where I'm going, what I'm reading, what I'm doing. I do see that there is a reason for having all of these security cameras, which is mainly doing what they are, but do they have to follow everyone's each move? It seems really unecessary to me.
In my opinion, security cameras aren't used to document crimes, but to keep everybody in control. Would you really pull something questionable with a camera getting you at every angle? I sure wouldn't. By having cameras all around us, I don't feel safer, but more fearful.
But it's in the elevator.. not her bedroom. I still think it's okay.
Anyplace where cameras are legally allowed to record are considered public places. On campus, in a hotel, etc. Why should we be scared about these cameras capturing something we do in public? Maybe there should be a protocol as to whom is allowed to see the footage produced by security cameras, and whether or not it was used to help increase security.
-Justin Horn
Most people wouldn't do socially unacceptable things in public. Therefore, we should not be worried about being monitored in public places.
The cameras are very useful in getting needed information, and I doubt most security guards rewind and watch the security tapes for entertainment. So, we do not need to think that our privacy is being invaded in a pubic place.
However, if a CCTV camera were placed in a private place, then I would have a problem.
- Evan Nicholson
I understand the point of cameras for protection. I think it is fine for the images to be released if it is an issue of public safety. These images of Princess Diana were unessarily released and do not feel that the public has a right to see them. While I don't believe it did anyone harm to see them, I think it should have been up to her family as to whether the images could be released.
I mean it's public in the way that anyone can just walk in and check in, not like an apartment building. I don't mean it's publicly owned or anything.
I don't really worry that pictures of me doing stupid things will be published somewhere; I think that the cameras are strictly for safety purposes. If you really think about it, it is kind of creepy that everywhere you go now, there is a good chance you're on camera, but I think it's good in that when bad things happen, now there's a way to go back and re-watch it in order to understand or identify suspects and whatnot.
I think it was okay to release the video of Princess Diana. I don't think anyone is really being hurt by the fact that it's public information now, and she was an icon...some people want to know everything they can about her death, and it's arguable they have the right to know.
Well it doesnt bother me if there are cameras watching me because i feel a lot safer.I think it is good our campus has so much security and it is a well protected area. There is also no problem in watching clipings of Princess Diana in her last moments as she was not doing anything wrong.
That elevator is the hotel's property, not hers. It's not like they're taping her going to the bathroom. She chose to get into the elevator, just as we choose to walk through Temple. I know it makes me feel better knowing that if someone mugged me on campus, more than likely it would be caught on camera and would therefore give me a better chance at finding the person.
When it comes to worrying over whether or not stupid moments will wind up being published, I think that our country is obsessed enough with "being a star" that any person would likely celebrate at the idea that they would make the news. We have "The Real World", as well as other "reality" television shows, because people want themselvs filmed so that they can get attention. Face it: we're a nation of attention whores.
I don't think they should have been released. Were these cameras planted just to watch her or was it placed in the hotel overall? I feel that she has a right to her own personal life and that them showing this tape they are in the wrong.
I don't mind that there are cameras in Temple as long as those who are watching them are legit personnel. It is necessary for these cameras to be in the school in case of crime so that a suspect can be identified or caught, but if they are used for anything else there is really no reason for that. It will only cause problems and lead to controversy.
OK ... so you guys are cool with cameras. The elevator is pseudo-public space, right?
How about Facebook? Just about anyone can get on there these days and look at the silly things you do (I'm looking in your direction!).
Should Facebook material be allowed to surface as public information?
That is what happened with Miss New Jersey back in July.
Is that fine?
- George (the teacher)
I feel like the fascination over these pictures only comes from the fact that they are from the night of her death. People are probably intrigued or maybe even a little creeped out that just a short while after this, she was dead.
But yes, I'm kind of freaked out that there are so many cameras everywhere. Like, honestly, what if you have to fix your underwear or something... I don't want people to see that.
While I believe in protecting people's private lives, I do not find the release of these videos particularly offensive. True: Princess Diana was in privacy on her personal time. If that was that, I'd disagree with the release of these images. However, the fact is that Diana was killed and her death was highly publicized. I think that the ongoing interest in the ambiguity surrounding her death validifies (or at least makes somewhat relevant) the release of these images. For that reason, I do not think their release was wrong, but since the images to not relate specifically to or help clear up her death, I do not think they are completely appropriate either. In this case, it is obvious that the TV station was just releasing the images for their own benefit, which i believe is more offensive than the release of the photos themselves.
Facebook material should be allowed to surface as public material because, like this comment, as soon as you press publish you are putting it out there for people to see. The internet is global and people cannot just say, 'Oh well I only want this much attention and it was the fault of all the other people who blew it way out of proportion.' People know better. And, as far as having cameras in public and pseudo-public places, I say go for it. As long as putting cams in your own house is still your own choice or they are no put in places that actually invade your privacy, there is no harm in it. When I go into a dressing room, I expect there to not be a camera because that room is only for me to use while I am in it. Some places do put cameras in their dressing rooms to catch people stealing. That is a gross invasion of privacy. Post the camera outside to make sure I came and left with the same amount of clothing or have an attendant. In that case, stores are using technology to cut shrink and cut employee costs at the same time, but at the expense of the customer's privacy. Cameras in elevators or hallways or even alleyways are helpful. If I am going to be attacked, it most likely won't be with a group of people watching (although it has happened as in the case of Kitty Genovese). It will be in a place where having it recorded because there was no one else around will be helpful. I am not pro-Big Brother, having the government know what I borrow from the library and the contents of my emails, but I am pro-not ending up like an episode of CSI.
Post a Comment